I hadn’t seen the Donald Sensing piece or its mention on Instapundit, but I was thinking the same thing this evening as I thought about the fact that most of the headlines I’ve seen today have to do with the sex scandal and not with the facts of what happened in Benghazi nor with the Obama administration’s bungled non-response and subsequent coverup.

How does this help Obama again? If anything it would free Petraeus and allow him to give the unvarnished truth. So I can’t see how this is a purge and I have not seen any evidence Obama knew about this at all.

One more thing that needs to be taken away from this story is the social lives of our generals. How much do these guys make? I see no reason why he should be trouncing around the country with wives of folks in shadowy foreign investment funds who are saddled with debt and their investment funds happen to have strong projects in Pakistan, Libya and Yemen.

I would like to see a 20% pay cut of all officers higher than Colonel. Clearly these guys are making too much money have too much time on their hands.

Are you really that thick?
A person in the position to know exactly what happened at Benghazi now has his credibility destroyed and the MFM have something to talk about besides the debacle at Benghazi and the layoffs happening right-and-left because of ObamaCare, and you don’t see how this helps Obama?

Le sigh.

Maybe once you master how to use capitals, you’ll be able to beging to learn other things.

Emphasis added. Given that our friends in the legacy media seem to prefer the tawdry details of sex scandal to the real story of the Obama administration’s incompetence, it is a reasonable question, no?

Oh, so this nullifies the incompetence of the rest of the MSM. Even though Fox has spent time covering Benghazi (I don’t know about Drudge, but I would assume it has as well). Obviously every media outlet should be talking about Benghazi incessantly (and this affair should always be linked to that), but this doesn’t excuse the rest of the MSM.

V – I don’t think it destroys his credibility. If he came out and said “Obama ordered Islamic Militants to attack the embassy” that would carry a lot of weight. However, Petraeus is on record and under oath saying that the protests where about the video. That might destroy his credibility. But not the affair.

Distraction – Of course his affair will trump Benghazi because its just so weird. We have Tampa Bay socialite wives claiming diplomatic privileges, links to shadowy financing firms, a zealous FBI agent who leaked the investigation to Eric Cantor months ago and CIA sex.
Its quite a story that keeps getting more bizarre the more that comes out.

And is there anything in Benghazi so critical you need answers right away? No. Lets wait new information comes out instead “guesses” made by the tin foil hat crew.

“Obviously every media outlet should be talking about Benghazi incessantly”

Why? There is nothing concrete, only speculative guesses by conspiracy theorists. During the bush admin it was the same way with the leftie crying that every rumor on bush was not talked about all the time. They constantly complained that the media is “in bed” with the Bush Admin. While the people on the right called lefites treasonous for wanting them to discuss classified info, and moonbats for believing and pushing the crazy conspiracy theories.

Then came hearings and leaked documents and other stuff that proved that some of what the crazy left was saying was true, some was not. The media did not just report every rumor and speculate on every rumor then and they won’t now.

mike, there is far more than speculative guesses by conspiracy theories; there are a lot of questions going unanswered, particularly related to why additional security was not provided and why Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi in the first place.

Not to mention the considerable evidence that the attack on the embassy was far more than a protest over an internet movie

Clusterfuck might bury bones of dead babies in the backyard of the white house and the press would say that it’s dog bones.

No normal country would have protected a clusterfuck of a president. In Spain when the conservative government ‘lied’ about the cause of the Madrid bombings (saying it was internal terrorism and not the Muslims) they have been crushed soundly. They then elected the zapatero clusterfuck that drive the car off the fiscal cliff and destroyed whatever economic prosperity they had. But hey, they are on the verge of collapse but they have gay marriage. I see a pattern here.

Wow, that Crowley article is absolutely insane. Nothing but innuendo and baseless assumptions and leading questions. Conservatives have found their replacement for the birth certificate conspiracy.

Comment by Levi — November 14, 2012 @ 8:53 am – November 14, 2012

Sort of like this?

Invading Iraq appealed to Bush (and more importantly, the neocons that infested his administration) for a number of reasons. Principally, it was a campaign prop. Landing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit to give a speech in front of a giant ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner? Oh, you are truly a fool if you don’t think that Bush (and Rove) didn’t want that for their re-election campaign. Iraq allowed Bush to run as a war president, which sounds serious and important and strong. The Democrats that were running against him could be portrayed as against the troops and compromising the war effort and all that. And all of this happened and it worked out perfectly for them.

Second, it put the media in the Republicans’ back pocket. Now I know, I know, the media is liberal and the media hates George Bush! But just ignore that impulse and listen for a minute. The media loves wars. Wars mean ratings, ratings mean money. News organizations were jockeying for favor with the administration and they were asking for interviews and for embed access and were more than willing to be mouthpieces for the administration’s talking points. You might remember (who am I kidding, no way you would know about this) about the Pentagon’s retired general program that plastered shills for the administration and war all over the media, which was happy to play their part. Covering the war (remember how much coverage the war received) kept the media busy and largely off the administration’s back for their other policies.

And how about those other policies? Iraq became a catch-all justification for Bush’s various ‘anti-terror’ measures such as the Patriot Act, warrant-less wiretaps, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detainment, etc. Invoking the fact that “We’re at War!” is a handy way to defuse and steamroll criticism for extreme positions such as those above. Bush wanted to invade.

Finally, can’t ignore, can’t stop it, has to be said, money. Invading Iraq was a way for lots of Republican companies to make lots of money. You can tell that this is the case, since the massive transfer of huge amounts of money to conservative companies was quite literally the only thing that the Bush administration appeared to plan for. There are the personal connections between contract winners and senior Bush administration figures, cost-plus, no-bid contracts (mmm, ain’t those some delicious free market principles), the unwillingness to investigate fraud, the protection of the oil infrastructure at the expense of civilian protection, and on and on. Take Paul Bremer’s decision to allow foreigners to buy state-owned companies for dirt cheap and repatriate all the profits. Get that? How is something like that supposed to help the Iraqis get back on their feet?

Combine that with the increase in defense spending at home, and you’ve got Bush’s primary motivation. Money. The neocons wanted an economic wild west and Bush gave it to them in Iraq. There were no regulations, there were no inspectors, there there were not taxes, just money. A conservative’s wet dream, and all you had to do was lie the country into a war. Hell, I’ll grant that Bush probably thought there were weapons there, but that doesn’t excuse him lying about it.

Eh, I don’t think this helps Obama that much (though I certainly understand the point made above), and I put a whole lot less stock in some conspiracy theory than I do that the media just loves, loves, loves a sex scandal because it sells. The media is in the business of making money and sex scandals involving government officials make money for media outlets.

I like the FBI guy who got reassigned after sending the Tampa Temptress his bare-chested picture. Where is Anthony Weiner when we need him?

FBI Directer Mueller and Eric Holder apparently kept the White House in the dark until after the election in the same fashion that Sgt. Schultz Obama didn’t know nothing about Benghazi until he read about it on a Cheerios box.

And good old Petraeus was dead certain that the You Tube film was at the heart of the bump in the road in Benghazi and sent Susan Rice out on the Sunday morning talk shows to spread the word.

What a coincidence that General Allen turns up in the mix as a real hormone hounddog.

Panetta is off with Hillary to bolster security ties with Thailand and Cambodia and, incidentally, Australia. Thank heaven we are finally working hand in hand with Thailand and Cambodia. As we abandon patrolling the Pacific sea lanes, those countries will certainly do a bang up job in the Straits of Malacca.

Panetta would like to get back to California and consulting for government millions. Holder thinks he will state at DOJ and continue to fundamentally change it. Hillary is toasted and toast. She is no longer useful. Maybe she could retire is a cushy job like Ambassador to Switzerland and see Bill more often at his Bilderberg enclaves.

A lot of cabinet shuffling is going to take place. Obama doesn’t even keep up with the names of his cabinet secretaries, let alone have any cabinet meeting.

Watch Valerie Jarrett. And remind me again who Obama’s Chief of Staff is. Will we have a Department of Business? Will Trumpka or Cass Sunstein head it or will they discover Samantha Power?

Isn’t there room for Valarie Plame somewhere?

So much to contemplate and with the help of Levi and Passing Gas, we will all be comforted that Obama’s in His Oval Office and all is right with the world.

I’ve got to respectfully disagree about generals and admirals getting paid too much. The way that military pay is structured, junior officers are not paid very well (albeit better than all their jobless recent college grad friends). But officer pay ramps up pretty quickly, so by the time an officer is an O-3 (that is, LT in the Navy or captain in USAF, USA, or USMC), they are pretty much rolling in money relative to their civilian counterparts of the same age. (That’s how it was for me about a decade ago. Oh, how I miss looking at my bank statements from ten years ago!) Mid-grade officers continue to be paid quite well relative to their civilian counterparts as they move up the ranks a bit. There are always plenty of reasons a person may wish to leave the military, but for mid-grade officers, greener pastures is typically not one of them. In any case, by the time someone is an O-6 (Navy captain or USAF, USA, or USMC colonel), and definitely by the time they became a flag officer, pay tends to fall behind what they could make as a civilian. There are obviously perks to being a flag officer (and based on recent events, it’s easier to see what sort of, um, perks might come with being a flag officer), but typically flag officers stay in the military due to their commitment to the country rather than the pay, no matter how good that pay is, given that flag officers usually have a resume that could get them a much higher-paying executive job in the private sector. So, if pay is lowered for flag officers, it is likely that more of our best officers will leave the military, leaving in their stead more mediocre officers charged with leading our men and women into harm’s way. (And unlike the rest of the public sector, the military’s system of promotion and retention is very much based on merit although flag officer promotion often times is sort of controversial in that regard, given that flag officers tend to operate a bit more like politicians than lower ranking officers.) And no matter how atrocious the conduct of some of our flag officers, you can be sure that tolerance for such behavior is much less tolerated in the private sector or, for that matter, with the presidency.

Please, if you’d like to explain how nobly George Bush argued for and persecuted the Iraq War, I’m all ears. Nothing reinforces my view of conservatism like someone like you making excuses for George Bush and Iraq. What will you go with? We did find the weapons after all, it’s just that the media doesn’t report it? Maybe they got moved to Syria. Too embarrassing? I guess you could stand with George Bush in accusation of the intelligence community, but then why doesn’t Obama have that bailout in Benghazi? (It also undercuts your party’s personal responsibility crap.) Whatever you do, ignore the money trail and the huge, apparently unanticipated-by-the-administration costs of the invasion, while you whine like a child about the deficit and your tax dollars being confiscated!

Maybe a quickie? Just accuse me of not supporting the troops and wanting to coddle the terrorists and we can be done with it.

Awwww, look, Levi’s trying desperately to turn attention to the UN approved international coalition force that liberated Iraq, continued the policies of the previous administration, and was proven correct.

Anything to distract from his supporting the lies on Benghazi and that he has no standards.

I illustrated your whine ( Nothing but innuendo and baseless assumptions and leading questions. ) with your previous babble about George W. Bush which is all innuendo, baseless assumptions, etc.

Nothing can be proved to you because you are impervious to anything that would challenge your innuendo based, baseless assumptions.

You are the village idiot, but you can not begin to understand why you continually make a mockery of yourself through the “deep” philosophical hate and partisanship that you vomit on cue.

You are set for life blaming George W. Bush as the Genesis of every failure your Obamessiah lays on the country. He could walk into the Smithsonian and go full Major Hasan on the tourists and you would be right here blaming it on George W. Bush and conservatives and religion and man-made global warming and the turn-coat tooth fairy and a rise in unicorn farts from genetic engineering.

You can’t handle the truth. But, then, neither would you recognize the truth if it bit your left nipple off.

The little fascist puke has no sense of irony. How he could have read what he posted on this thread as a sweeping accusation against Monica Crowley and conservatives and then reread his accusation writ large and plain as an example of his rant, is mind boggling. He has no intelligence. He can not recognize himself in a mirror held up to him. He is that bigoted and simple.

Obama is announcing $1.6 Trillion to be collected over 10 years in new taxation to pay off the $1.4 Trillion deficit per year in the Obama non-buget spending orgy. And, mind you, this is before Obamacare deficit spending even kicks in.

So, The Won is going to offset $14 Trillion of added deficit with $1.6Trillion of increased tax revenue which, of course, the fastidious Obamacorps will not spend on anything but paying off the deficit.

Levi is plain stupid enough to lick up what ever Obama spews and then blame any problems of George W. Bush.

But, at some “bump in the road” ahead, I fully expect Levi to turn on Il Duce and then blame George W. Bush for making him a little fascist puke in the first place.

your previous babble about George W. Bush which is all innuendo, baseless assumptions, etc.

Please, would you elaborate on this? I’d love to hear more. I laid out four arguments for why George Bush would have been motivated to invade Iraq, so what part do you disagree with?

Do you disagree that the Republicans used the Iraq War as a central part of their re-election campaign?

Do you disagree that the media became a willing mouthpiece for Republican talking points because they wanted the war, too?

Do you disagree that the Republicans used the Iraq War as a justification for many of their policies?

Do you disagree that private companies with deep connections to the Bush administration enjoyed preferential treatment when it came time to rebuild Iraq?

Where is all this supposed innuendo? Where are the assumptions? There is a decade’s worth of empirical data that leave absolutely no room for counter argument on any of those points. So please, if you have some secret truth, I’m ready.

I erred and insulted rocks. You are dumber than the contents of a septic tank.

Read my lips: Your “mind” is set in concrete of your own mixing and making. You will not and can not accept anything that does not accord with your doxology. You create your own “facts.” You hear nothing. You are a full-blown doctrinaire fanatic, zealous extremist and sectarian militant and manic zealot. You are not broad minded, flexible, enlightened, rational, tolerant, understanding or even intellectually interested in other perspectives. That is to say there is nothing “liberal” about you in the classical sense. Your narrow-mindedness is abundant and hostile. You show no magnanimity, only a malignant, congenital and perverse stubbornness to stick with your sorry-ass raison d’être and flail fruitlessly in trying to draw others into your stupid rat’s nest of patchwork animosity, malevolence and pure bile.

Read my lips: Your “mind” is set in concrete of your own mixing and making. You will not and can not accept anything that does not accord with your doxology. You create your own “facts.” You hear nothing. You are a full-blown doctrinaire fanatic, zealous extremist and sectarian militant and manic zealot. You are not broad minded, flexible, enlightened, rational, tolerant, understanding or even intellectually interested in other perspectives. That is to say there is nothing “liberal” about you in the classical sense. Your narrow-mindedness is abundant and hostile. You show no magnanimity, only a malignant, congenital and perverse stubbornness to stick with your sorry-ass raison d’être and flail fruitlessly in trying to draw others into your stupid rat’s nest of patchwork animosity, malevolence and pure bile.

Oh look, why am I not surprised, you’re making excuses, too. I’m supposed to take conservative criticism of a Democratic President seriously, but I’m not supposed to talk about the conservatives’ deficit of credibility. Again, your ideology proves convenient. Preach that personal responsibility while sprinting away from it, heliotrope.

Do you disagree that private companies with deep connections to the Bush administration enjoyed preferential treatment when it came time to rebuild Iraq?

Nowhere do you define what companies, how you define deep, or preferential.

Nor do you have any intention of doing so, because you know you will get hammered by conservatives bearing facts — such as your screaming fit that Mitt Romney was a murderer because layoffs cause deaths which suddenly came to a stop when you were forced to apply the same rules to your Barack Obama.

We can short-circuit any argument you make very easily, Levi, because it all is based on the following:

1) Obama is my godlike Messiah who has never done anything wrong, who is not responsible for anything that happened during his Presidency, and who criticism of is complete and total ignorance and racism

2) George W. Bush is the Antichrist who is responsible for every ill that has come upon the United States before, during, and after his Presidency.

Conservatives have realized that you are mentally incapable of accepting anything that runs counter to that argument. Facts, rationality, and objectivity are irrelevant to you; the only things you recognize and care about are that which reflect the two predetermined conclusions you have reached above.

Put simply, Levi, you believe that you know everything and that anything that does not confirm your beliefs completely is false.

That is neither scientific, logical, or rational; it is fanaticism.

And you are a fanatic.

And thus we can send you into a screaming tizzy by simply posting links and facts that demonstrate that that isn’t the case, leaving you foaming at the mouth and insisting that all of us are ignorant racists because we don’t worship Barack Obama as God or condemn George W. Bush as Satan.

This is why you run away from threads. This is why you never answer, never post links, never try to prove your arguments; you just scream and rant and namecall.

Normal toddlers learned not to do this from their parents. But your parents are, as you have stated, ignorant fools that let their sense of right and wrong be set by a six-year-old.

No excuses here, you little fascist puke. I am leaving you alone to back off in your own Jackyard. I have no desire to join your circle jerk.

How about you factually and accurately demonstrating how Monica Crowley is “absolutely insane” as a model of intelligent reasoning? (Wow, that Crowley article is absolutely insane. Nothing but innuendo and baseless assumptions and leading questions. Conservatives have found their replacement for the birth certificate conspiracy.)

Lead the way and educate as a good sockpuppet should.

You can’t piss with tall dogs, so you when pissed on you call it rain.

How about you factually and accurately demonstrating how Monica Crowley is “absolutely insane” as a model of intelligent reasoning?

With pleasure:

Of course, everyone is fascinated by the salacious details and intriguing personalities involved in the latest scandal involving sex. In this case, people are riveted by the extramarital affair between America’s once-golden General, David Petraeus, and his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

No. She is assuming the general population is as captivated by this story as she is. People in the media care about tabloid shit like this because it involves people they know. If you put junior high school girls behind the news desk and had them reporting this stuff, you couldn’t tell the difference.

Wonder why we’re getting a drip-drip-drip of wild new details every day? To keep us distracted. The sex scandal is a mess, but it’s not the mess that matters.

What matters is what happened in Benghazi, Libya on September 11

Wait – she was just talking about how fascinated and intrigued and riveted she was by all this, and now she’s going to complain about someone trying to distract her? People distract themselves. It’s easy to ignore this kind of stuff.

As has been reported by Aaron Klein and others, the U.S. compound in Benghazi was NOT a consulate. It was a “mission” of some sort, and it looks increasingly likely that the CIA was running the show there. What was the CIA doing in Benghazi?

Oh well, if Aaron Klein said it! Vague innuendo and assumptions. It also shouldn’t be a surprise that the CIA is in Libya.

2. What were Stevens and the others doing at that CIA mission late into the evening?

I bet Obama had them stuffing absentee ballots!

3. Before he was killed that fateful night, Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods rescued scores of Americans from the compound. Who were they? What were they doing in Benghazi?

It could have been anybody doing anything, from routine government paperwork to a top secret clandestine operation. Just because the consulate was attacked does not mean we need to announce to the world what was going on there.

4. Woods sprung into action to try to save the Ambassador and others despite being given the order to “stand down.” Who gave the “stand down” order? Did Obama approve it?

Trying to blame Obama by asking the wrong questions. There could be any number of very good reasons why the order was given, and who gave the order is mostly irrelevant.

5. Who repeatedly denied their requests for help as they were under attack? Who was watching the attack unfold in real time back in Washington?

She’s padding the list.

6. Who dreamt up the fiction that the attack was inspired by some obscure video? And who sent out top administration officials, including U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and CIA Director David Petraeus, among others, to spin and perpetuate the fiction—for weeks?

Some obscure video? This obscure video triggered riots throughout the Middle East at our embassies and the embassies of our allies, and even roused the Republican candidate for President from bed to give a nonsensical press conference. In that environment, it’s more than reasonable to conclude that the video had something to do with the attack, and that’s still very much the case.

And why would they change their story if they decided they were going to lie about it?

A) Did this administration secretly sell or give weapons to al Qaeda and other Islamists operating under the “Libyan rebel” banner?

Innuendo and assumptions based on no evidence.

B) Was Stevens running a CIA operation to reacquire those weapons from al Qaeda for two purposes: to prevent it from being known that the U.S. was arming our mortal terrorist enemy, and/or to transfer those weapons to the equally odious al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamist “rebels” in Syria?

Innuendo and assumptions and not even a thinly veiled “Obama loves the terrorists!” attack.

C) Jennifer Griffin of Fox News—who has done outstanding investigative work on this story—reported yesterday that part of the CIA mission in Benghazi was actually a detention facility in which scores of prisoners were being kept from all across the Middle East and Africa. She reported that it was the “largest” such facility the CIA was operating. The CIA immediately issued a denial, saying that it has not operated such a detention facility since January 2009, when newly sworn-in President Obama signed an executive order outlawing such facilities. Did Benghazi, in fact, house a terrorist prison?

Well how about this? Even when proof is given to the contrary, we still get to accuse Obama of housing a terrorist prison. Now until forever, this will be a question orbiting the conservatives’ legendary Benghazi myth, even though the answer was definitively given.

D) If Griffin’s reporting is correct and Benghazi WAS a detention facility, did Obama know about/sign off on it? Or was this a rogue CIA operation?

Padding the list.

E) Griffin also reported that the prisoners held there were moved 2 weeks before the attack on September 11. Did the CIA get a sense an attack was
coming to try to free the prisoners there?

I mean, even assuming all of this is true, how exactly is this supposed to reflect poorly on Obama?

F) In a public speech on October 26, Paula Broadwell stated that the Benghazi mission WAS, in fact, holding prisoners. How did she get that information? It seems to back up Griffin’s reporting.

Padding.

G) If it WERE, in fact, a detention facility, were interrogations occurring? If so, what was the nature of those interrogations?

Assumptions and speculation.

This is just the starting point for the REAL questions that MUST be asked—and answered—by this administration.

Oh, they MUST be answered, even if that involves the disclosure of classified information?

I just don’t understand what you guys want to happen. Do you need the CIA to disclose every detail of its operations in Libya for the past 6 months?

mike, I didn’t follow politics when Bush was president, but it is abhorrent that the media would be so disinterested in what seems like a major controversy or at the very least suggests some level of incompetence on the part of the Obama administration (and Obama being so ill-informed on what is happening in his administration is a story as well). At the very least, they should be asking questions about it and reporting on it. Nothing good comes out of a failure to question things or to keep information that people should be aware of from people who do nothing but use the MSM for news.

Oh, they MUST be answered, even if that involves the disclosure of classified information?

Of course.

After all, Levi, you screamed and cried and kicked your feet all through the Bush administration that “classified” simply meant “cover-up for government incompetence”.

I just don’t understand what you guys want to happen. Do you need the CIA to disclose every detail of its operations in Libya for the past 6 months?

Comment by Levi — November 14, 2012 @ 3:57 pm – November 14, 2012

Of course.

After all, Levi, you screamed and cried and kicked your feet all through the Bush administration that the CIA should be forced to release all details of all operations in the name of “transparency” and stopping “war crimes”.

We can keep going with this, but the simple fact of the matter is that every excuse you are using for your Messiah Obama is one that you declared invalid and unusable during the Bush administration.

And that really is the point. We can short-circuit any argument you make very easily, Levi, because it all is based on the following:

1) Obama is my godlike Messiah who has never done anything wrong, who is not responsible for anything that happened during his Presidency, and who criticism of is complete and total ignorance and racism

2) George W. Bush is the Antichrist who is responsible for every ill that has come upon the United States before, during, and after his Presidency.

Conservatives have realized that you are mentally incapable of accepting anything that runs counter to that argument. Facts, rationality, and objectivity are irrelevant to you; the only things you recognize and care about are that which reflect the two predetermined conclusions you have reached above.

Put simply, Levi, you believe that you know everything and that anything that does not confirm your beliefs completely is false.

That is neither scientific, logical, or rational; it is fanaticism.

And you are a fanatic.

And thus we can send you into a screaming tizzy by simply posting links and facts that demonstrate that that isn’t the case, leaving you foaming at the mouth and insisting that all of us are ignorant racists because we don’t worship Barack Obama as God or condemn George W. Bush as Satan.

This is why you run away from threads. This is why you never answer, never post links, never try to prove your arguments; you just scream and rant and namecall and say that anything and everything that disagrees with you is wrong.

No. She is assuming the general population is as captivated by this story as she is. People in the media care about tabloid shit like this because it involves people they know. If you put junior high school girls behind the news desk and had them reporting this stuff, you couldn’t tell the difference.

OK, box of rocks, look at your italicized quote that elicited this drool-cup anser of yours and show where Monica Crowley is “captivated” by “tabloid sh*t” side of the the story. You can’t. It is your assumption, based on what you want to see. Are you actually denying that the “tabloid sh*t” aspect is NOT a draw for the general drooling class who are NOT involved because they don’t know the players personally? How box of rocks dumb can you get? This is ratings driven and nuts and sluts and car races captivate people like you and yours.

Wait – she was just talking about how fascinated and intrigued and riveted she was by all this, and now she’s going to complain about someone trying to distract her? People distract themselves. It’s easy to ignore this kind of stuff.

Oooopsie!!! Kindly return with the proof that Monica Crowley talked about how Monica Crowley was “fascinated and intrigued and riveted (…) by all this.”

Oh well, if Aaron Klein said it! Vague innuendo and assumptions. It also shouldn’t be a surprise that the CIA is in Libya.

Box of rocks pathetic. No one is surprised that the CIA is in Libya, fool! What was suggested is evidence given by Broadwell and others that the U.S. compound in Benghazi was NOT a consulate. It was a “mission” of some sort, and it looks increasingly likely that the CIA was running the show there. What was the CIA doing in Benghazi?

And like the box of rocks that you are you read “What was the CIA doing in Benghazi?” as “Why was the CIA there?” rather than “What was the CIA up to in Benghazi.” Pathetic, but not surprising considering your one dimensional mind.

What, pray tell, do investigations go on? Suppositions, suspicions, clues, deductions, critical thinking. But then you determine that Monica Crowley is “‘absolutely insane’ as a model of intelligent reasoning.” And that is because she is using suppositions, suspicions, clues, deductions, critical thinking.

It could have been anybody doing anything, from routine government paperwork to a top secret clandestine operation. Just because the consulate was attacked does not mean we need to announce to the world what was going on there.

Since when does a closed secure intelligence investigation of classified information equal “announc(ing) to the world what was going on there?”

Trying to blame Obama by asking the wrong questions. There could be any number of very good reasons why the order was given, and who gave the order is mostly irrelevant.

How is determining whether the President approved the the “Stand Down” order either the “wrong” question or an attempt to “smear or blame” the President? You write stupidly thoughout reams about G.W. Bush the liar. What about giving the Obama Administration the opportunity to set the record straight of Benghazi? Why do you oppose that? Does is mess with your idolatry of something?

She’s padding the list.

She is outlining the investigation just like Watergate and you are clearly made uncomfortable by where all this may lead. Tough toenails, little fascist Puke, you are useless carbuncle on the ass end of society.

Some obscure video? This obscure video triggered riots throughout the Middle East at our embassies and the embassies of our allies, and even roused the Republican candidate for President from bed to give a nonsensical press conference. In that environment, it’s more than reasonable to conclude that the video had something to do with the attack, and that’s still very much the case.

Oh, yeah, that funky video. Congratulations, for the first time in memory you have said the video is absolutely and totally to blame and everyone in the world agrees. You are one rock short of brain dead because of your incredible restraint. You are perfectly welcome to “reasonably conclude” that the video had “something” to do with the attack.” That is very wimpish and rat abandoning the ship-like of you. How quaint.

There is so much more, but this Frisking of you peeing all over yourself will suffice for now.

The really funny part is how Levi screams and pisses himself that asking ANY questions about this is treason against Obama.

Meanwhile, Levi was screaming and pissing himself during the Bush adminstration that everything was Bush’s fault, that everything could be blamed on Bush, that Bush gave the orders for everything, etc.

I must admit, watching the little cultist melt down is explaining so much about Obama voters. They truly are Peoples’ Temple rejects, lining up for their Jim Obama Jones to tell them to drink the Kool-Aid.

OK, box of rocks, look at your italicized quote that elicited this drool-cup anser of yours and show where Monica Crowley is “captivated” by “tabloid sh*t” side of the the story. You can’t. It is your assumption, based on what you want to see. Are you actually denying that the “tabloid sh*t” aspect is NOT a draw for the general drooling class who are NOT involved because they don’t know the players personally? How box of rocks dumb can you get? This is ratings driven and nuts and sluts and car races captivate people like you and yours.’
…
Oooopsie!!! Kindly return with the proof that Monica Crowley talked about how Monica Crowley was “fascinated and intrigued and riveted (…) by all this.”

As I described, media figures routinely use their own opinions as stand-ins for what the rest of the country is thinking. When Crowley says that people are intrigued and fascinated and riveted, what she really means is that she is intrigued and fascinated and riveted, and that because she’s so smart and intelligent and well-compensated for appearing on TV, everyone else must think that, too. This is a typical fallacy that conservative and liberals both make.

Box of rocks pathetic. No one is surprised that the CIA is in Libya, fool! What was suggested is evidence given by Broadwell and others that the U.S. compound in Benghazi was NOT a consulate. It was a “mission” of some sort, and it looks increasingly likely that the CIA was running the show there. What was the CIA doing in Benghazi?

Oh well then, just let your imagination go wild and assume the worst. You only ask “What was the CIA doing in Benghazi?” because you want to answer “Something that reflects horribly on the Democrats and Obama!” Who knows if the CIA was even there or not? It’s far too much to assume that’s the case based on such flimsy evidence.

You know, there’s always going to be a reluctance to disclose information about CIA operations in foreign countries due to the nature of the work that the CIA does. They may very well have been on a mission, and maybe that mission included assets or sources or prisoners or informants or intelligence that’s classified and needs to remain classified. But of course, you know this, and conservatives know this. So you do this nice little trick where you demand answers from an entity that you know can’t provide them, allowing you to accuse the government of covering up for ‘something,’ which you’re all too enthusiastic to wildly speculate about.

And like the box of rocks that you are you read “What was the CIA doing in Benghazi?” as “Why was the CIA there?” rather than “What was the CIA up to in Benghazi.” Pathetic, but not surprising considering your one dimensional mind.

Three different ways to say the same question.

What, pray tell, do investigations go on? Suppositions, suspicions, clues, deductions, critical thinking. But then you determine that Monica Crowley is “‘absolutely insane’ as a model of intelligent reasoning.” And that is because she is using suppositions, suspicions, clues, deductions, critical thinking.

Investigations also go on objective, reasonable investigators, which Monica Crowley most certainly is not. You’re not being critical or suspicious or objective if you’re dedicated to arriving at the conclusion that Obama is doing something evil, which is the operating assumption of just about every conservative in the country at all times.

Since when does a closed secure intelligence investigation of classified information equal “announc(ing) to the world what was going on there?”

Well I guess I’m not understanding. You want to know if the CIA was at the consulate, if the consulate was actually a CIA mission, and what the CIA’s mission was, but you agree that you don’t want to announce to the world what the CIA was doing there? (If they were doing anything at all.) There are plenty of investigations and reviews going on and I’m sorry that none of them are anti-Obama enough for you, but they’re focused, properly, on the attack, how to prevent others like it in the future, and who was responsible.

How is determining whether the President approved the the “Stand Down” order either the “wrong” question or an attempt to “smear or blame” the President? You write stupidly thoughout reams about G.W. Bush the liar. What about giving the Obama Administration the opportunity to set the record straight of Benghazi? Why do you oppose that? Does is mess with your idolatry of something?

There’s nothing that needs to be set straight. You guys are crapping your pants, Tea Party style, and demanding attention and to be taken seriously.

She is outlining the investigation just like Watergate and you are clearly made uncomfortable by where all this may lead. Tough toenails, little fascist Puke, you are useless carbuncle on the ass end of society.

Yup, keep telling me how intimidated I am about all the great things conservatives are doing and saying.

Oh, yeah, that funky video. Congratulations, for the first time in memory you have said the video is absolutely and totally to blame and everyone in the world agrees.

Holy shit, you can’t read apparently…

You are one rock short of brain dead because of your incredible restraint. You are perfectly welcome to “reasonably conclude” that the video had “something” to do with the attack.” That is very wimpish and rat abandoning the ship-like of you. How quaint.

There is so much more, but this Frisking of you peeing all over yourself will suffice for now.

So what is the poor insane child to do? He can’t blame Obama. He can’t hold Obama accountable. So in order to make Obama look good, he projects all of Obama’s proven crimes onto Bush, screaming and crying that Obama is blameless, that everything, everything, EVERYTHING is Bush’s fault.

And we refuse to let him do it.

Hence, he screams and cries and wets himself even more, because that’s how he broke his worthless and incompetent parents. Notice how his rant is nothing more than “BUSH BAD! BUSH BAD! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHHHHHHHH!” There is no fact, no research, no link, no real logic anywhere in his post; it’s the tantrum of a frustrated and emotionally-helpless toddler who is trying to scream his way into getting what he wants.

And we will keep poking him and laughing at him. We can melt the little imbecile’s brain into powder. We can humiliate anyone and anything that dares speak up in the name of Obama or “progressivism” simply by citing him and his rants. We can tire him out until he realizes he’s losing and runs away and sulks, refusing to answer.

Sometimes, I think the sociopathic cultist’s presence here is a subconscious cry for help.

Comment by V the K — November 14, 2012 @ 9:40 pm – November 14, 2012

Meh, I think it’s more about envy and hatred for those who clearly have what he does not – respect, intelligence, moral values, money and – what all of those give – the capability to think and live independently.

Levi has none of those. Levi can’t exist without the Obama Party and government. And if Levi were to do anything other than what the Obama Party orders him to do, he knows he would have nothing.

Hard-core slaves resented freemen. In the same way, Obama Party slaves like Levi resent those who are free.

It appears as if this thread has devolved into 3 or 4 people ganging up on ‘Levi”. Could someone please clarify for me what exactly they think happened in Benghazi? Or is it just an open ended demand for more information to try and hold Obama’s feet to the fire, actual crisis or not.

And briefly,

“No one can explain why this you tube video led to riots, but the ‘killing bin laden’ video didn’t.”

This is a silly thing to say. This culture kills people for making cartoons. Not to mention most Muslims are peace loving people who didn’t like what Bin Laden stood for or did to the U.S. on 9/11. I spent some time in the Middle East, you cannot try and apply Western reason or logic to these people.

I can’t tell you what “exactly” I think happened at Benghazi, because we have multiple holes covered by stupid stuff.

Ambassador Stevens was in a mission with security he did not trust and emailed about several times. After meeting with the envoy from Turkey he walked him to the gate and returned to the compound. Shortly thereafter, all Hell broke loose with mortar fire, machine guns and more. He was sealed off and the attackers broke in and spread diesel fuel and set the place on fire. His hired guards broke out to get help and he was lost in the smoke and confusion.

A drone was filming overhead within a short time of the attack. One mile away CIA people wanted to go help and were told to stand down. Two disobeyed orders and reached the compound and did help. One painted the mortar nest with a laser expecting ariel gunships to take it out and exposed his own location in the process. Panetta knew about and was watching the drone views within an hour and within two hours he had a meeting with Obama.

No help was sent on land or by air.

Stevens body was delivered to a hospital by Libyans. There is much to be learned about that.

The bodies were returned to the US and both Obama and Hillary went out of their ways in receiving the bodies to say that the men were killed in reaction to a You Tube film. They left room for no other possibility.

There is a great deal more to fold into this narrative, but that is the skeleton. Now the Obama White House and Obamanauts are busy denying the facts and deflecting.

This is exactly the same as Watergate. What did the players know and when did they learn it.

As to the last part of you comment —- If a You Tube video upset the masses and caused this attack on the Benghazi mission —–

Why would the high five film on killing Bin Laden be taken passively by the radical Islamists who were crying “we are all bin Ladens” at the 9/11 riots?

Are you suggesting one was insulting and the other was not? If so, on what basis and evidence?

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**